been duly acknowledged by most of the great powers of the world. Will it be argued, that Mexico should herself have acknowledged that independence, and abandoned her claims? Centuries might have elapsed,-this might never have been done,—and yet not a single Mexican soldier dared to set his foot on the left bank of the Rio Grande for purposes of conquest. Was the authority of Cromwell during the Protectorate, or of the Empire under Napoléon, ever questioned, because the dynasties which they had overthrown had not acknowledged that authority? William III. and Louis Philippe were at the head of revolutionary governments, but was the royal power ever gainsayed, because the Stuarts or the elder branch of the Bourbon family had not surrendered their claims? Who ever contended, that the treaties concluded by Holland for half a century prior to the recognition of her independence by Spain, by the United States previous to 1783, or by the South American States before they were acknowledged to be independent by the mother countries, were void and of no effect? Did Mexico, indeed, entertain any scruples when she entered into a treaty with the United States, regulating the boundaries of her territory, in the year 1828, and long before Spain recognized her independence?

It was not only desirable that Texas should be annexed, in the opinion of Mr. Polk, but he thought it should be done immediately, for these reasons: While the treaty of 1844 was under consideration in the Senate of the United States, all the official correspondence between the representatives of the two governments was most unadvisedly made public; and from this it appeared, that

the protracted war in which Texas had been engaged, had completely exhausted her resources. It was to be apprehended, therefore, if her overtures for annexation should be rejected—as had previously been the case, on several occasions, when she applied for admission into the American Union-that the fear lest the unwise disclosure of her weakness would invite fresh hostilities on the part of Mexico, which she was not in a condition to resist, would induce her to seek a permanent alliance with some foreign power.

England had for years cast a longing eye upon Texas, and she had refused to unite with France and the United States, in a joint effort to procure the recognition of the independence of the young republic by Mexico. From the extensive forests of live oak that dotted the surface of Texas, she hoped to procure an abundance of ship timber for the uses of her navy, and from its rich interval lands and wide-spreading prairies, an inexhaustible supply of cotton for her manufactories. For the latter she had long been dependent on the United States, and she desired to be freed from that condition of dependence. She attempted to raise cotton in Egypt, in Demerara, and in India, but her schemes entirely failed; and as a last resort she turned her attention toward Texas. A commercial treaty was formed with her, soon after her independence was acknowledged by the United States, under the operation of which the exports of the latter to Texas fell off over three-fourths within the short space of three years. It may be doubted, whether England desired to bring Texas under her sway as a colony, but that she designed to make her a commercial dependency is apparent.

*

Moreover, the British government, through her speakers on the floor of Parliament, and the dispatches and official correspondence of her ministers,† avowed a desire to procure the abolition of domestic slavery in Texas. The object which she had in view was obvious; and the safety and tranquillity of the Southern States of the Union demanded that her emissaries should not be suffered to carry out their schemes, and that her authority should not be felt or acknowledged, in a territory lying close upon their borders.

When the Texas question was presented in this manner to the American people, public men, and the parties to which they belonged, arrayed themselves upon one side or the other. The whig party at the north opposed the annexation, because, as they alleged, it would be an act of bad faith toward Mexico; because the debt of Texas, said to amount to ten or twelve millions of dollars, was to be assumed by the United States; and because they were opposed to the extension or increase of the slave territory. At the south, the whigs were divided; one portion of them advocating the annexation, and the other portion concurring with their party friends at the north upon the first two grounds of objection. The democratic party generally favored the annexation; but a portion of the party at the north, and a few of its members residing in the slave states, opposed it-some for all the reasons put forth by the whigs, but the greater number on account of the position of Texas with refer

* Conversation between Lord Brougham and Lord Aberdeen, in the House of Lords.-London Morning Chronicle, August 19, 1843.

† Senate Doc. 341, 1st Session, 28th Congress, p. 27, et seq.

ence to Mexico.

Mr. Van Buren and Mr. Clay agreed

very nearly in their opinions. Both expressed themselves in favor of the acquisition of Texas, if the American people desired it, provided, however, that the consent of Mexico should be obtained, or, at least, that efforts should be made to procure it; and neither of them objected to the annexation on account of the slavery question collaterally connected with it.*

In the midst of the commotion produced by the agitation of the Texas question, the national democratic convention assembled at Baltimore, on the 27th day of May, 1844. Until the publication of his Texas letter, Mr. Van Buren had been by far the most prominent candidate; but when the Convention met, Lewis Cass, of Michigan, Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, and Levi Woodbury, of New Hampshire, all of whom were in favor of the immediate annexation of Texas, were supported for the presidential nomination by their respective friends, with greater or less earnestness. Immediately after the organization of the Convention, a rule was adopted, in accordance with the precedents established by the conventions of 1832 and 1835, requiring a vote of two-thirds to secure a nomination. Mr. Van Buren received a majority of the votes on the first ballot; seven additional ballotings were then had, but at no time did he receive a vote of two-thirds ; whereupon his name was withdrawn by the New York delegation. The delegates opposed to his nomination, after the first ballot, concentrated their strength mainly

* Letter of Mr. Van Buren to Mr. Hammett, April 20th, 1844.-Letter of Mr. Clay from Raleigh; to Mr. Miller, July 1st, 1844; to Messrs. Peters and Jackson, July 27, 1844.

upon Mr. Cass; but as the friends of Mr. Van Buren numbered more than one-third of the Convention, and were irreconcilably hostile to the selection of any of the other candidates originally proposed, it was apparent that no nomination could be made without their consent.

The name of Mr. Polk had been freely spoken of in connection with the vice-presidency, and when the convention found itself in this dilemma, a number of his friends among the delegates voted for him on the eighth ballot as the presidential candidate. All conceded his unquestioned ability and talents, and the mention of his name operated like magic. Harmony was instantly restored. On the ninth ballot he received nearly all the votes of the members of the Convention, and the vote was subsequently made unanimous. The nomination for the vice-presidency was tendered with great unanimity to Silas Wright, of New York, a distinguished friend of Mr. Van Buren, but it was declined; and George M. Dallas, of Pennsylvania, was then put in nomination. The closing proceedings of the Convention were marked by great good feeling and enthusiasm, and when the meinbers separated, the joy and satisfaction that filled their hearts, was manifested by their words, and depicted on their countenances.

The nomination of Mr. Polk was communicated to him by a committee appointed by the Convention. Unexpected as was the honor thus conferred upon him, he would have been more than mortal had he declined it. In reply to the committee he returned the subjoined letter of acceptance, in which he avowed his firm determination, in the event of his election, not to be again a candidate.